NANDILAL RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

condone the delay in filing of appeals by the assessee in ITA No. 1317/Kol/2016 and ITA No. 1319/Kol/2016 and admit those appeals for adjudication. 6 ITA Nos.1317-1320/Kol/2016 Mukund Rungta & Nandlal Rungta.., AY 2010-11 3. The primary facts which triggered the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act by the ld CIT are as follows :- (a) The assessee

TIRUPATI TIMBERS & PACKAGING P. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1428/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Tirupati Timbers & Packaging P. Limited,…Appellant Room No. 563, Marshall House, 33/1, N.S. Road, Dalhousie, G.P.O., Kolkata-700001, W.B. [Pan:Aabct2720Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Girdhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 20, 2025 O R D E R

92 days. Hence the delay is condoned for the appeal. 4. Facts in brief are that the appellant-assessee is a Private Limited Company, which filed its return of income electronically on 07.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.7,30,962/-. 2 Tirupati Timbers & Packaging Pvt. Limited Information had been received from the ADIT(Inv.), Unit-6, Kolkata that the assessee

DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The assessee has assailed the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and consequent order as invalid and bad in law as the same are barred by limitation.the assessee has also challenged the order passed u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessment is neither erroneous

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

condone the delay and admit this appeal. 9. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts of the case and in law the order passed by the learned AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29-12-2017 making additions of Rs.3,55,92,450/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect

BINOD MOKTAN,KALIMPONG vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), KALIMPONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.353/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Binod Moktan……...……………………..…………………....Appellant Upper Pedong, P.O Pedong, Kalimpong District, W.B. 734311. [Pan: Aripm6300Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Kalimpong……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Received Contractual Receipts Of Rs.51,04,000 From M/S. Gajmer Works During The A.Y. 2018-19 & Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) Amounting To Rs.54,040/- Was Also Made On The Said Receipts. However, The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Said Assessment Year. Subsequently, Proceedings Were Initiated Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed A Return Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,92,770/-. However, The Assessing Officer Completed The

Section 148 was issued. In response, the assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs.4,92,770/-. However, the Assessing Officer completed the I.T.A. No.353/Kol/2025 Binod Moktan assessment by determining the total income at Rs.74,64,042/-, after making an addition of Rs.69,71,272/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

92 of the Act provides that, any income from specified domestic transactions, as defined in Section 92BA of the Act, have to be computed at arm’s length price. Further, Section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Rules sets out the specified methods in terms of which such arm’s length value is to be computed

M/S. EMERALD PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-5(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate order was passed on ex-parte basis by the learned CIT(Appeals) was without considering the submission made on 24/01/2017

KARAN POLYMERS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated herein above

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

92 days. After hearing the parties and taking guidance from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), we condone the delay of the assessee and proceed to hear the case on merits. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

YUVRAAZ NOPANY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 51(4), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits 2. On the date of hearing, the assessee had filed an application for adjournment which was rejected. It was also brought to our notice that the assessee has availed the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Since the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, hence

ACIT, CIR-30, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SREEKANT PHUMBRA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1082/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Cir-30/Kol -Vs- Shri Sreekant Phumbra [Pan: Afspp 0429 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 23.04.2012 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of three days in filing the appeal before us by the Revenue, for which a delay condonation petition has been filed explaining reasons for the delay. In view

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

condone the delay in filing of cross objections by the assessee for both the years under appeal and admit the same for adjudication. CO No. 153/Kol/2010 – Asst Year 2006-07 – Assessee CO CO No. 154/Kol/2010 – Asst Year 2007-08 – Assessee CO & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 3. The only issue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

condone the delay in filing of cross objections by the assessee for both the years under appeal and admit the same for adjudication. CO No. 153/Kol/2010 – Asst Year 2006-07 – Assessee CO CO No. 154/Kol/2010 – Asst Year 2007-08 – Assessee CO & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 3. The only issue

SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No.1111/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sri Anil Kumar Jain -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xx, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Acfpj0712R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 4. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.10,400/- which was rents payable by the assessee for the period prior to the previous year relevant to A.Y.2009-10. It was the plea of the assessee that the assessee was a tenant of the premises at 23A, Kalakar

SUDHA SURANA,NEW DELHI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito Ward-61(3) Bamboo Villa, Sudha Surana Central Revenue Building, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Vs. New Delhi-110085 Kolkata-700014, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adepb5526F Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 05. The legal issue raised by the assessee is against the invalid reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act without any application of mind and without there being a proper approval of the competent authority. 06. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed

ASHOK PRASAD GUPTA,NORTH DINAJPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4),, RAIGANJ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1848/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ashok Prasad Gupta,………………………….…Appellant C/O. Daspara C.S. Shop, Daspara B.O., Chopra, North Dinajpur-733207, W.B. [Pan:Bfepg3955G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-2(4), Raiganj, Income Tax Office, Karnajora, Rajganj-733130, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who runs a country liquor business. The assessee filed his return of income on 04.01.2017 showing income of Rs.3,97,510/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) under CASS during the financial year 2018-19 on the issue of cash

M/S. SHREE SHANKAR SERVICE STATION. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-49(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay of 92 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without deciding the issue with regard to the validity of the order on initiation and satisfaction with regard to the applicability

GARRAH SKUS LIMITED,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, BANKURA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that an ex parte order of assessment and dismissal of appeal on ground of limitation are illegal, improper and arbitrary in nature. 2. For that Ld. AO, NFAC, in consideration of the facts

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. HIMADRI SPECIALITY CHEMICAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. The issue raised in ground no.1 to 4 and 8 is against the order of Id. CIT (A) deleting the Arm's Length Price adjustment of ₹3,97,99,637 as made by the Id. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer on account interest on loan.\n3.1. The facts in brief are that